|
Correspondence from Charles Stansfeld Jones to Albert H. Handel
25 June 1946
Dear Brother Handel,
Further to my letter of yesterday's date—to which a postscript was added later. I have reviewed our correspondence, and the whole matter, in the light of what prompted that postscript.
You are not to blame in your original desire to effect what you conceived to be a reconciliation between A.C. and myself. You were, however, very unwise not to have informed me that you were dealing through a third party, and in having entrusted an important occult communication, sent through you in confidence and good faith, to anyone other than the Post Office for direct transmission to A.C.
A.C.'s "reply", so far as indicated in first quotation of yours of June 21st, seems to me only to make sense on the supposition that he had never received the communication of mine dated May 15th, which on May 19th you said had been forwarded intact—leaving me to suppose you meant to A.C. If A.C. received some other "explanation" from your correspondent and not the original letter intact, A.C. himself has been deceived and his reaction is perfectly understandable. It is therefore a grave matter. On the other hand, supposing you to have sent my communication in a sealed envelope to be transmitted to A.C. by your correspondent. Then A.C. is deceiving his agent, your correspondent, by answering in the way he did, and thus giving a wrong impression of what was said. There was nothing in my letter to indicate "a return to the penitent's form" but rather that an outstanding success had been achieved. I surmise, however, that you did not seal the communication to A.C. and that your correspondent was therefore made aware of the contents. This too, on account of cryptic nature of message, may have created much confusion. Your correspondent may have thought it "wiser" to alter the message in some way—in that case he was dishonest. And why did he not follow A.C.'s instruction to "let me know this view" by writing direct to me?
It seems that your correspondent must have written a further letter to A.C. in order to bring forth the remarks contained in second quotation. Two cases evidently are being compared. But in this quotation A.C. is telling a deliberate untruth in saying: "It was of course much too sacred for him to give even the faintest hint of its nature." (referring to the 1917 stage of Initiation) when that very stage had been fully reported to him and actually contained the Key of Liber Legis; to say nothing of the fact that some part of it was printed and published in 1923—thus giving A.C.'s statement the lie direct and putting him in a very bad light in thus trying to deceive your correspondent.
It is true, however, that the record Liber 31 did contain some very sacred matters which were not published, and a good reason for this might be found in the mention of the "Office of SILENCE" referred to in an article in O.P.R. [Occult Press Review]. This same "Silent" aspect in regards to certain planes also largely accounts for scanty communication with A.C. of the last 20 years (not 30) and fills those years much more effectively than some might suppose. When A.C. asks, therefore, "What was the result?", his further pronouncements were made on the strength of insufficient data, and his solicitude for "wasted years" quite unnecessary. But even A.C. knows that one is not in the habit of "crawling back", and since my communication to him through you contained no such suggestion we must, I think, come to the conclusion that the matter was somehow put to A.C. in a wrong light.
You will therefore see the gravity of the situation and perhaps that my warning about "dog-faced demons" was no idle one.
This thing can do me no harm; so have no concern on my account. No harm should come to you, for your motive seems to have been alright. I wish no harm to A.C. or your correspondent. I think you should ask the latter frankly just what did occur, but go into details as little as possible. My mind very naturally reverts to just who this correspondent is? Frankly I think his initials may be W.T.S. [Wilfred Talbot Smith]. I invite your "Yes" or "No" in that connection—simply because I don't want to connect this Brother with the affair in my mind if he had nothing to do with it.
Now I want to repeat that I am very glad indeed that this thing occurred, because it seems to contain a good lesson for all of us.
Yours as ever fraternally,
Achad.
|